🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”